allquiet_list_teamsSearch/list teams, optionally filtered by display name. All Quiet: GET /v1/team/search/list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max teams to return. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. | |
| displayName | No | Filter by team display name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, authorization needs, or rate limits, providing minimal value beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus API endpoint reference, no redundant words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks details about the return format or any prerequisites, which could be useful given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches/lists teams with optional filtering by display name, and the resource 'teams' differentiates it from sibling tools for incidents and users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; differentiation relies solely on the tool name and resource type, without contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.